This G20 Summit was not like those that had preceded it. The New Delhi Summit seemed to encapsulate the current state of the world, reflecting geopolitical shifts and global polarization.
Washington seemed to have dialed down its pretensions to "moral superiority,” behaving less arrogantly and demonstrating greater readiness to accommodate the conditions and the unique qualities and positions of emerging powers, like India, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. China, whose president did not attend the summit for various reasons, was extremely present despite its absence.
As for India, it showed great tenacity and a determination to enhance its political and economic position on the world stage despite the many obstacles it faces. It was the "face" of this new global moment.
This G20 Summit was nothing less than a powerful image of the Global South’s vigorous pursuit to redefine international relations to make them more equitable and fair. It is clear that the new dynamics in international relations are pushing in the direction of a "multi-alignment," whereby countries do not confine their alliances and partnerships to an axis or fixed camp.
Nothing illustrates this better than the recent comments of Deputy Assistant to the President and Coordinator for the Indo-Pacific at the National Security Council Kurt Campbell. Following the meeting between US President Joe Biden and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Campbell asserted that “I believe that the most important bilateral relationship in the 21st century for the United States will be with India.” He also admitted that the US seeks a stable and consistent relationship with China.
However, Campbell also added that "India is not willing to compromise their security interests with Washington for commercial gains through trade with China." These statements are essentially an acknowledgment that we live in a different world, one in which India, among others, can build flexible partnerships with rival states and axes instead of remaining entrenched in political and ideological camps, as had been during the Cold War.
Imposing this position did not come easy for India. That India will become a global power free of the influence of great players was far from inevitable given the myriad challenges it faces. From its ethnic and religious struggles, which have been accompanied by the complications brought about by the rise of Hindu nationalism, to its border tensions with its Chinese and Pakistani neighbors, the extreme economic disparities between regions and ethnicities, bureaucratic inefficiency, low levels of foreign investment and global competitiveness, and massive gaps in health, education, and resources sectors, India remains a long way away from realizing its potential to transform into the international player it desires to be.
Nonetheless, the global stature and future reputation it has already achieved seem like a miracle of international politics. India has become an inspiration for many countries seeking to create a fairer global order. If, by hosting the G20 summit, India sought to underline the emergence of this new world and India's place in it - " a friend of the world" - as PM Modi put it in independence speech a few weeks ago - the absence of Chinese President Xi Jinping sends a similar albeit more confrontational, message.
Xi’s absence reflects his dissatisfaction with the status quo of international relations in a world order dominated by the United States. Thus, he is only keen on taking part in multilateral forums that align with China's vision for global governance, like the upcoming BRICS Summit and the Belt and Road Forum.
Many explanations have been given for the absence of the Chinese president. He perhaps sought to avoid being scrutinized by global media outlets and questioned by political figures regarding the difficulties currently facing the Chinese economy, especially given the recent reports of unprecedented disputes among the ruling Chinese elite regarding his foreign and domestic policies.
The latent tensions between China and India could also explain his absence, as Xi might want to avoid bearing witness to the evolution of Indo-American relations. A desire to avoid validating, through his presence, the idea that India has the capacity to organize an international forum attended by all, may be an additional reason to explain his absence.
However, we should not downplay the role that a deliberate strategy - probably - played in impelling his absence. Indeed, China wants to ignore international forums where Washington occupies a leadership position and to enhance alternative bodies in which China plays a central role, like the BRICS and others. It is difficult not to see this as a challenge to the US-led international relations system, which China sees as unfair. Moreover, Xi has made far fewer trips abroad this year, and his visits have been limited to countries that Beijing sees as friendly nations.
All of these actions and aspirations on the world stage, both inside and outside the G20 Summit, raise questions regarding the fairness of global order that have not been seen since the end of the Cold War. The implosion of relations between France and Africa, for example, manifested in the dramatic scenes of the successive coups in France's former colonies, attest to the fact that the pursuit of a more just global order goes beyond the competition between the United States and China.
What constitutes a fair world order?
This is not merely a moral question. It is also a question of which legal and political foundations can ensure sustainable global security. It is a question at the heart of the need to develop political philosophy.
That is, the theories about the justice and fairness of international relations were developed in line with the needs of liberal democracy during its protracted struggle with communism. And they can no longer address our contemporary problems, be it the repercussions of neoliberalism, authoritarianism, the rise of populism, climate issues, or leaps in technology, especially with the rise of artificial intelligence.
The resentment against the rules of the current international system simmering in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, demands restructuring the international system and a rearrangement of its priorities based on principles that reflect more nuanced conceptions of justice, equality, and mutual respect.
